Posted
by
Soulskill
on Thursday February 28, 2013 @01:06PM
from the free-information-has-a-steep-price dept.

Entropy98 sends this quote from the LA Times:
"Army Pfc. Bradley Edward Manning pleaded guilty Thursday to 10 charges that he illegally acquired and transferred highly classified U.S. government secrets, agreeing to serve [up to] 20 years in prison for causing a worldwide uproar when WikiLeaks published documents describing the inner workings of U.S. military and diplomatic efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan and around the globe. The 25-year-old soldier, however, pleaded not guilty to 12 more serious charges, including espionage for aiding the enemy, meaning that his criminal case will go forward at a general court-martial in June. If convicted at trial, he risks a sentence of life in prison at Ft. Leavenworth, Kan."

I'm not making any assertions as to the character of any past politicians, rather trying to correct one of those lies that keeps being repeated and believed to be true when in fact it is not. Slashdot itself has not formally corrected itself on that matter either, and still many slashdotters to this day echo that original article on a relatively frequent basis. (Capital Blue, by the way, still hosts that article, with no retraction or update of any kind, which unfortunately, many political blogs link to and even have written big editorials showing outrage over the comment, which in all likelihood was never made.)

Actually, I was more referring to the recent stuff with the Obama administration trying to explain why the Second Amendment doesn't exist and why we shouldn't worry about it. I guess I got my quotes mixed up.

Well ask yourself honestly, what president hasn't shat on the constitution at some point? They all have.

Even the ones people tend to look up to the most. Take Lincoln, who suspended habeus corpus, or FDR, who did oh so many things that in any other time would never fly. Come to think of it, the worst offenders were all wartime presidents. Ironically those ones are often the ones that are the most hated until long after the fact.

I'm guessing here that you voted for Obama? Actions that speak louder than words...Where should I begin with him. Drone strikes on US citizens? Shitting on the second amendment? I have no love lost for the former (I think he had it coming,) but am rather displeased with the later. However I think many on slashdot, given its stance on overzealous protection of IP, should be rather upset that Obama ratified the ACTA treaty without even letting the senate so much as have a glance at it - that is a very blatant violation of the constitution which not only requires that they see it, but that they actually vote on it as well, and it pushes heavily in favor of the Hollywood unions that supported him. Also most overlooked are that he gave government loan guarantees to various firms that lobbied heavily (including funding) for his election, and nearly all of them defaulted on those loans shortly after they received them - a very shady thing if you ask me, even if these companies didn't default. The later two are both akin to taking a bribe, only in campaign contributions rather than money.

I'm trying to see how that is any less of a crime than anything his predecessor did, which if you keep tabs on these "news" sites that commonly repeat this lie, they to this date are rather silent on what their guy does. That isn't to say that anything that any previous presidents have done is acceptable, but one thing I hate about American politics is that too often people will be a cheerleader for their guy and overlook his transgressions, while pointing fingers at everybody else.

I've said it on slashdot before that lobbyists aren't the problem - they can't vote after all. The problem is people voting for somebody without even bothering to examine their character - rather they just look at the letter next to their name, or vote for whoever their friends told them to vote for. It's really no different from the rivalry you see between sports fans of opposing teams. Much in the same, it's rather disturbing the way politicians kick the ball around like a hot potato (e.g. the debt ceiling) and while the news makes sensational articles about it, most people aren't really interested in electing anybody who has a real plan to do anything about it - again they just want to support their team.

Well ask yourself honestly, what president hasn't shat on the constitution at some point? They all have.

Never said they didn't, but the post I was responding to didn't specify any of the other Presidents, so thus it would have been pointless and off topic for me to discuss any of them.

I'm guessing here that you voted for Obama?

The first time.

Learned my lesson, that's for sure. Actually, I've been trying to start a trend of referring to him as "Bush the Third," but so far hasn't gained a lot of traction.

I'm trying to see how that is any less of a crime than anything his predecessor did, which if you keep tabs on these "news" sites that commonly repeat this lie, they to this date are rather silent on what their guy does.

Hence one major reason why The Daily Show is America's most trusted news program.

one thing I hate about American politics is that too often people will be a cheerleader for their guy and overlook his transgressions, while pointing fingers at everybody else.

With ya on that, too.

I've said it on slashdot before that lobbyists aren't the problem - they can't vote after all. The problem is people voting for somebody without even bothering to examine their character - rather they just look at the letter next to their name, or vote for whoever their friends told them to vote for.

I would argue that "the problem" isn't necessarily that people are voting for bad candidates, but that, thanks to the rampant fiscal elitism that controls modern political campaigning, it is nigh impossible for a good candidate to get on the ballot, let alone be elected.

Take Ron Paul for example - love him or hate him, you can't deny that the media deliberately did everything they could to avoid so much as mentioning his name during the primaries; I recall one instance in particular, where MSM talking heads listed the first, second, and fourth place candidates in the Republican primary. Who the fuck does that??? The answer, obviously, is someone who has a vested interest in the third place candidate not receiving any attention.

Now I don't know if you're pro union, but one thing that disturbs me about unions is that you are all too often required to fund their political causes (in the form of dues,) even if you object to them, or else they'll see to it that you get fired. They're supposedly on your side, but your union boss who often makes more than your real boss will call a strike a win even if you lose your job in the process. Meanwhile he keeps h

You are correct - Bush never actually said those words, in that order.

You are never correct - Bush actually said those words, in that order.

Somehow I think a statement that someone didn't use a certain set of words "in that order" is an admission that the claim that the words are being quoted is a lie. And the intent of those who quote the words "out of order" is much clearer than the intent of the person who is being misquoted.

If you allow the Constitution to become "just a piece of paper", you deserve what you get.

The Constitution is the only collection of laws that is actually aimed AGAINST the powers that are and not against their subjects. No part of the constitution (at least none I can think of right now) limits the powers of the people, but all of them limit the powers of the government. If you let them take that away from you, your government will be the LAST ones to defend you against it.

For the record, the Constitution says no such thing. It does (or did) state that, for voting and taxation purposes, slaves will (would) be counted as 3/5ths of a person, but at no point does the document specify the race of the slaves in question.

Slavery was a hot potato even back in 1787, so the Framers decided to avoid the topic altogether and ship a product rather than argue endlessly and come up with nothing. Many of the founding fathers were opposed to slavery, but the southern slaveholding states would've never ratified the Constitution if slavery was banned.

They excluded the word "slave" on purpose. If the clause had read "slaves shall be counted as 3/5th", that would've be an implicit legitimization of slavery. So they basically just kicked the can down the road and the issue didn't get addressed until 1860.

Also, the Three-Fifths Compromise was actually was done in opposition to the wishes of the slave-holding states. Those states wanted to be able to fully count slaves as part of their population in order to benefit from their numbers when it came time for apportionment for the House of Representatives and for the distribution of taxes. The non-slave-holding states opposed this idea.

That so many people think that this was put into the Constitution to dehumanize blacks, when it was actually put in by those in opposition of slavery, is astounding.

No need to get upset, sheesh! The slave-holding states wanted full counting of slaves, the non-slave holding states wanted 0 (which is less than full counting). Sure they compromised but the concept that people find offensive is that slaves counted for less than a whole, which is the non-slave-holding position. If the non-slave-holding states had completely gotten their way, then we'd be hearing about how slaves weren't counted at all! And again, that would be backwards.

Hes being treated according to military law not civilian law. They are 2 very different set of laws, the military being much more strict as it should. Letting people run around with loaded guns and allowed to kill people requires a different standard. I don't feel sorry for him i feel sorry for his family and hes lucky hes hasn't been shot because if this was WW2 he most certainly have been shot.

I would hope that if this were WW2 then a lot of the rather eyebrow-raising stuff he leaked wouldn't have existed in the first place.

I'm pretty sure it did exist during WW2. It's just been deleted from the historical record by judicious consideration over what to commit to paper, or when certain papers happened to be destroyed in a mysterious fire. With today's technology, people just shoot off their immediate thoughts in a quick email which gets archived multiple times and survives in perpetuity. Even

The word "slave" is found nowhere in the Constitution of the United States, nor does anyone count as 3/5 or a person. Representatives and taxes are apportioned according to a rule that includes the phrase "three fifths of all other Persons".

I'm a Technical Sergeant(E-6) in the USAF. I'm a 'non-commissioned officer', or NCO. I did not accept a commission, I enlisted. At a very vague level, commissioned officers are all approved/commissioned by congress(it's a massive list buried somewhere). My rank is not dependent upon that.

Article 133 is completely irrelevant to me. My boss, a 1st Lt. (O-2), can be court-martialed under that clause, I cannot be. Articles 92&134 are generally the catchall of choice for enlisted personnel.

The "different standards" in this case are UCMJ Article 10, which states:"When any person subject to this chapter is placed in arrest or confinement prior to trial, immediate steps shall be taken to inform him of the specific wrong of which he is accused and to try him or to dismiss the charges and release him."

The military justice system actually has a more stringent speedy trial standard than civilian law.

Someone volunteering to join the military (e.g. Pfc. Manning) also agrees to be bound by the UCMJ. It's not hipocracy, it's simple reality. If you want members of the military to have the same rights as civilians, you don't want to have a military or the protections it provides. In order for the military to function, it's members must be held to higher standards and have fewer freedoms; otherwise, the whole thing would just fall apart.

Pfc. Manning is in a hell of his own creation for not only did he volunteer to join the military of his own free will, he was granted access to sensitive information and that sets the bar even higher.

Manning set the bar even higher than you think -- a high moral bar that most US foreign policy can't hold a candle to. Manning did the right thing in becoming a whistleblower and showing the public what our 'representatives' are scheming. We have a right to know about US support for the coup in Honduras, etc.

What is hypocritical about this situation is that Manning is being tried for upholding his oath in a meaningful way, while the prosecutors and persecutors are using the letter of the law to contradict its spirit.

"or the whole thing would just fall apart" is actually a pretty lame justification.

Though I completely agree that Manning did screw himself over royally, pretty much. I'm generally not into victim blaming, but when one signs an SF-312, one really ought to read and adhere to what one's signing. If you don't agree with what's going on, you're obligated to report that to the FSO, and get your clearance revoked and work a non-cleared job. Period. Just because someone else is dishonoring their agreements doesn't mean you get to dishonor yours.

If this was something that truly disturbed him, there are many legal avenues that he could have taken to expose this without releasing classified documents, which he has a duty to protect.

For example, congressmen and senators are allowed (in most cases) to see the goings on of the military. He could have contacted one of them, who usually do listen to even lower ranking military members, and said something to the effect of I've noticed unlawful military activity that you should look at.

Even if you're an E-1 buck private, you're not only allowed but expected to disobey unlawful orders of even a five star general if you have to, and report what they're doing to somebody who is authorized to do something about it. That can often include the local Adjutant General Corps members, which can include e.g. an E-6 who can in the case of unlawful activity can stick it in the face of a full bird colonel and there's nothing he can do about it. They routinely piss off the local chain of command because they're supposed to advocate for those within the ranks of the military who are being mistreated. If you've ever watched star trek, think about how the lowly doctor has authority over the captain when it comes to medical fitness. The AG can do exactly that when it comes to criminal matters.

I know this because I've been through the process when I was a soldier. In my opinion, Bradley Manning really asked for what he is receiving. There are so many other ways he could have dealt with this, and he chose the sensationalist method, which is unlawful from nearly every perspective you can examine it from.

And by the way, if you obey an unlawful order, you're held every bit as responsible as if you acted alone, but so is the officer who gave you that order.

"Lethargic"? Try "unconstitutional" or "illegal", per the Sixth Amendment:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial..."

How are you certain that Bradley asked for to use that right? You are certain that the defendant (or his lawyer) wasn't the one who stalled in order to present a more vigorous defense, track down other witnesses, gather evidences of PTSD or insanity or brainwashing or wahtever?

And, how do you define speedy? He had 22 charges against him; that means the government had about 6 weeks to prepare to prosecute each of those charges. 6 weeks isn't a whole lot of time.

I imagine he's probably being confined in a less "permanent" location right now, which will probably be moderately more comfortable

So I guess you haven't heard about the human rights complaints about the conditions he is being held in? Probably haven't heard that he testified about being stripped naked every night, had his eyeglasses taken away, held in a cold room and wasn't allowed to have sheets or blankets on the bed. He isn't allowed to talk to anybody, isn't allowed to exercise, has to request toilet paper and soap on a per use basis which is sometimes granted and sometimes not.

The United Nations special rapporteur on torture (the top anti-torture official in the world) accused the United States of torture, cruelty, inhumane and degrading treatment specifically in this case. So, I'd say that no, he isn't very comfortable where he is...

has to request toilet paper and soap on a per use basis which is sometimes granted and sometimes not.

How awesome is that? It's somebody's job to fetch him toilet paper. I bet Richard Branson doesn't even have that. Considering that all his meals are prepared and delivered and he never has to go out and run errands, it's pretty sweet.

I've never been arrested (lucky me), so I could be wrong, but I imagine he's probably being confined in a less "permanent" location right now, which will probably be moderately more comfortable.

As someone who has been arrested and seen the inside of a temporary holding cell more than once let me assure you that you are wrong. His conditions are likely to improve in a longer term facility. Jails are actually considered more dangerous than prisons precisely because it's considered 'temporary' and dangerous murderers and rapists are mixed in with contempt of cop and file sharer prisoners. In real prisons they are supposed to at least try to segregate people. I would imagine that a military prison mi

I'm with you there. In every courts marshal proceeding I ever witnessed about 5 in 20 years. The trials combined came a lot swifter than the it took for Virginia to prosecute a child one molestation case. In every single case even the civilian one, it was the legal maneuvering by the defense attorneys that caused the holdups.
In my career, I have served as a balif, juror and was head of a correctional custody facility for a while. I have seen the process, it never been a bureaucracy. They are usually handled very very quickly! Speed is never advantageous to a defendant. Not only does time allow the defense better preparation, witnesses memory lapses and its much easier to poke holes in their credibility.
If you just want to hang someone a 10 minute trial is all a prosecutor needs.

"Lethargic"? Try "unconstitutional" or "illegal", per the Sixth Amendment:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial..."

Sorry bub, but he's in the military. The military isn't subject to constitutional (civilian) law, in respect to standard jurisprudence. Refer instead to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

What I get scared about are police officers calling people, 'Civilians' --those cops are just as much a civilian as those they're sworn to protect, and just as protected by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as the general public.

The UCMJ requires trials within 120 days. Manning past that years ago. The UCMJ also forbids unlawful command influence - which Obama committed when he publicly pronounced Manning guilty, since as CiC is the boss of the prosecution and the judge. Funny how the "but Manning broke the laaaaaaaw" types don't care about that.

Well if they gave him a speedy trial they wouldn't have been able to torture him with solitary confinement, sleep deprivation, and all that kind of "fun" now could they? Remember when the USA was SUPPOSED to be the good guys that didn't torture people? Sadly the PTB are running the how to close a society playbook [youtube.com] that has actually be around since the days of Mussolini. I'm sure many would think the crazy Austrian was the innovator there but most of his stuff he ripped off of Mussolini. Watch the video and s

I think he's already suffered prompt and drastic punishment -- before trial. This, in violation of the UCMJ. He got the prompt punishment, just not the swift trial.

If found guilty, he will face further punishment. However, there's at least one rule he broke that should be able to get him life in prison: he used military intel for political gain and bypassed the systems already in place for highlighting these issues first to his superiors and then to the government systems in place outside the military se

It's true that countries with armies have not generally renounced killing people in war, on an active battlefield. However, many of them have renounced executions, even military executions. Most European countries no longer countenance execution of either: 1) enemies caught in a non-battlefield situation, such as captured spies; or 2) their own soldiers found guilty of treason. In either case, in such countries, the maximum punishment is lifetime imprisonment.

The big revelation is that he also gave the documents over to US agencies first. Aiding the enemy my ass, he went to Wikileaks after the New York Times (which Daniel Ellsberg used for the Pentagon leak) and other news agencies that didn't follow through.

He most certainly was aiding the enemy, and I don't see how going to NYT first changes that? Manning indiscriminately leaked an enormous amount of classified materials including details of our military tactics, names of our Iraqi and Afghan allies and spies, classified diplomatic cables revealing our diplomatic strategies etc etc. Wikileaks tried to erase some of the names etc but most of it still came out. That's not what being a "whistleblower" is about.

He most certainly was aiding the enemy, and I don't see how going to NYT first changes that? Manning indiscriminately leaked an enormous amount of classified materials including details of our military tactics, names of our Iraqi and Afghan allies and spies, classified diplomatic cables revealing our diplomatic strategies.

Could you please provide conclusive proof that the release of this information did in fact provide any meaningful aid to the enemy? Because even analysts who support the government's case against Manning have said there was little practical fallout from the leak.

You are the one who needs to conclusively prove that he wasn't attempting to aid the enemy by releasing volumes of military secrets in time of war.

No. The burden of proof relies on you to conclusively prove that he was attempting to aid the enemy. Innocent until proven guilty... remember?

And its absurd on its face to argue that he was "attempting to aid the enemy", based on his actions. If he was attempting to aid the enemy he would have leaked them straight to the enemy. Its bloody obvious that by attempting to leak to news agencies, and then after that failed to a whistleblower site that he was attempting to alert the public what its own government was doing. "Attempting to aid the enemy" just isn't on the table.

Now you could try and argue that his actions incidentally aided the enemy... but then you run up against the conclusive analysis that it had no practical effect.

So that leaves you with... he wasn't trying to aid the enemy with the leaks, and he didn't incidentally aid them either.

So now your strategy is to make inapplicable analogies to worthless diamond thefts? Is that some sort of prosecution variation of the Chewbacca defense?

It seems people are confusing civilian laws with military rules. He is under military oath to protect confidential materials. He knowingly broke that oath and under military law is being prosecuted accordingly.

Aiding the enemy doesn't have to be a deliberate choice. You don't have to say "today I will aid the enemy."

You do to be convicted of "attempting to aid the enemy". To attempt something requires intent.

If you just want to convict him of "aiding the enemy" instead of "attempting to aid the enemy" THEN you can maybe forego intent, but then you would at least have to prove that he did in fact aid them. So far the analysis hasn't shown there to have been any material aid rendered.

Embarrassing the government, and making a bunch of diplomats look like the complete asshats they are, and exposing dubious behavior to the world is not "aiding the enemy".

So what you are arguing is that the material he released was so meaningless that it makes no difference to anyone. His valiant bravery in releasing documents that seriously compromise US diplomatic efforts didn't actually have any effect on anything at all...

No. I'm arguing that it didn't aid the enemy. Aiding the enemy should be a very significant and overt bar.

Should we charge anyone trying to get rid of rapiscan airport scanners for aiding the enemy? What about people who argue against having to take their shoes off and be subjected to full body searches every time they fly, or people who object to no fly lists, and warrantless searches within 100 miles of the coast? In theory these measures make it harder for terrorists to hurt us, so anyone seeking to get rid of these measures is aiding the enemy? The majority of slashdot are traitors?

Aiding the enemy doesn't have to be a deliberate choice. You don't have to say "today I will aid the enemy."

By that standard, George W. Bush should be locked up for life - he may not have intended to launch the most effective recruiting campaign for Al Qu'aeda ever thought possible, but he surely did anyway.

Wait, who is the enemy here?Last time i checked, the only possible fit for the enemy in this whole scenario is the public. It embarrasses many officials who were doing things or saying things they shouldn't have been. I don't see any standard description of an enemy that could have benefited from any of the leaks. The only thing that makes sense is public opinion and backlash again shady dealings.

Any person who--
(1) aids, or attempts to aid, the enemy with arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things; or
(2) without proper authority, knowingly harbors or protects or gives intelligence to or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly;shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct.

While I believe he has a strong argument that his actions were not an attempt to aid the enemy, and a pretty good argument that his actions did not significantly aid the enemy in fact, he is going to have a hard time arguing against section 2. He did knowingly and without authorization give intelligence indirectly to the enemy.

TL;DR: I don't think he actually aided the enemy, but I do think he is in violation of the letter of the law concerning aiding the enemy.

right... A lot of people here are curiously disgusted by supporters of Bradley Manning, but there wasn't a single prosecution of anyone responsible for the war crimes Manning exposed. What do these people say to that? Do they support the double-standard?

We already knew about the waterboarding which our best intelligence indicates will get people to admit to anything we want them to admit (such as erroneous links between Iraq and 9/11 in one famous case). Manning did leak the video (search for 'Collateral murder Iraq video') of u.s. soldiers firing on a truck of civialians as well as people coming to help them in the aftermath, including killing two AP reporters. There were also leaked cables that confirmed thousands of accidental civilian casualties as well as standard modes of torture that were previously only hearsay or not considered widespread (involving sexual abuse, power drills and/or hanging people from the ceiling, forcing them in stress positions for long durations, etc). Additionally there was evidence of specific shady dealings with foreign gov'ts.

But the US gets a free pass for all the healthcare workers that are getting killed in Pakistan now, since a CIA operative disguised as a health care worker is what caught Bin Laden. Yes they are shooting doctors and nurses. And you don't give a fuck.

The New York Times would rather not publish classified information if they don't have to. They're aware that it potentially puts people at risk. They're willing to overcome it if they think that there's sufficient reason. That's what they did with The Pentagon Papers, where something crucial was being kept from the public that would affect how they directed the government to act (both with public opinion and with votes.)

if he did what the government accuses him of doing, he deserves [a] medal, not jail time.

I would argue that he deserves a medal *and* jail time. Sometimes a citizen has a moral obligation to break a law, but to say the military should just overlook his law-breaking sounds an awful lot like "the end justifies the means." And that is the same argument the government is using to violate the Geneva convention and international law.

And all the law breaking unveiled by Manning's alleged leaks? Where is the Concern for the law in Manning's treatment? Under the UCMJ he's supposed to get a trial within 120 days, AND be free of unlawful command influence. Which Obama committed when he pronounced Manning guilty.

We can talk about prosecuting Manning after Bush and Obama are in the Hague for war crimes. Anything else is garbage.

Dick Cheney is by far the easiest to go after: Torture of prisoners, specifically waterboarding, which the US declared a crime against humanity when the Japanese did it to our soldiers. Evidence: He announced that he'd done so on national television.

George W Bush: Probably torture as well. Aggression (attacking a country without reason to believe that country is attempting to attack you), which we killed several Germans for doing at Nuremberg. Ordering the bombing of civilian targets in Iraq.

Barack Obama: Ordering "double-tap" drone strikes [independent.co.uk], where a strike occurs, and 15-20 minutes later a second strike occurs that kills anyone who tried to save the wounded from the first strike. Ordering drone strikes on funerals, which is specifically prohibited.

We can talk about prosecuting Manning after Bush and Obama are in the Hague for war crimes.

What war crimes?

And hence answered that question.

As far as war crimes Manning exposed, the "Collateral Murder" video was of US troops directly firing on civilians who were attempting to rescue people who were wounded, which violates the Geneva Conventions in two ways: You can't legally shoot civilians, and you can't shoot people who are rescuing wounded.

I found where Obama said "He broke the law." and if you think answering a reporters questions at a dinner reception is command influence, you're out of touch with reality.And if you think any constitutional lawyer worth his salt would not be smart enough when asked such a question to say,"Hey, I don't comment on investigations esp. military ones to avoid creating the appearance of bias." you're out of touch with reality.

Laws have intended purposes; these just don't typically get written-into the laws because those writing them put out documentation at the time of writing, and because frankly they write them also as convenient pretexts to say "so sorry about the egregious outcome in this particular case of the application of this law, but the law, damn it, rules, not us--no, ignore that we wrote it in the first place and are able to revise it at a whim but have failed to do so after thousands of inquiries and urgently be co

It doesn't work like this. The ones in the middle management are always go down with the leaders, as long as you are in the losing side. If you are in the winning side, like US, you can do pretty much whatever you want, you won't be judged for war crimes, ever.

The nature of the charges against him, alongside the way he has been treated while in custody, shame the US system of justice. He surely committed a crime in doing what he did, but the punishment needs to fit the crime. Does it [guardian.co.uk]?

I doubt he would have gained any rank since he's been arrested so subtract 3 years. Then depending on when he joined (right out of highschool?) that would only give him 4 years in. At the end of my 4 years (back in the day) I had reached Spec 4. There wasn't a lot of room to go further without signing up again and going after training for newer missle systems. Like anything in life advancment takes planning along with the effort.

According to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] he was promoted to Specialist in 2009. He was then demoted back to Private a couple days before being arrested. Also, I don't think you can really say just by somebody's age what their rank should be. If you don't include a lot of other variables such as what age they joined the military, how well they actually performed, and what missions the person participated in. Stating that a number of years should equal a specific rank kind of reminds me of some union jobs, where people get

Now, I won't defend the Army's treatment of Manning after his arrest. But he shouldn't have been surprised he was charged with the crimes he is accused of.

This is different from the Ellsburg case, in that Ellsberg did not have an active clearance at the time he acquired and distributed the Pentagon Papers. Bradley Manning was an active-duty serviceman, and as such was subject to the restrictions imposed on him by his security clearance. Every person with security clearance is required to sign a document stating that if you ever disclose classified material acquired in the course of your duties to anyone not entitled to have it, the government will prosecute you to the hilt. It's not an ambiguous or hard-to-understand document.

If he had selectively disclosed evidence of malfeasance, that would be one thing, and it would make him a whistle-blower. But he did a complete data dump of diplomatic cables, much of which was sensibly-classified material, the disclosure of which was indeed harmful to national interests, both to security and otherwise.

This government is no different from any other government past and present including those labeled communist, they are all run by the rich, the oligarchy or what we call the capitalist. The hypocrisy "All man are created equal" and yet our government oppressed and mistreated pretty much everybody in the u.s and overseas. Has anybody in our government ever been held responsible for the atrocities they have caused overseas for the past 60 years? NO!. What about the bullshit Iraq invasion which lead to hundreds of thousands dead, in poverty, sold into sex trade, etc... We were the aggressors, we had no right to invade. Do you really think u.s did it to liberate the people from saddam especially when this country did not give a shit about the 1990's iraq sanctions which left nearly 1 million Iraqi people dead mostly children. What happens if the whole world sanctioned us, no more imports? u.s threatens everybody with nukes? probably.

Look at the way the u.s treats it's citizens here, why was it so shocking to hear how the cia tortured the prisoners? cops can beat the crap out of you, shoot you if you run away even if you are not armed, prison is completely hell and it does not rehabilitate anyone, overzealous prosecutors. U.S is a failed ideology.

Bradley Manning is the victim of scapegoating and political posturing. I should think that one of the highest forms of patriotism and love for one's own country is to blow the whistle when bad things are happening. Manning cared so much for his country and was obviously so troubled by what it was doing that he felt the need to speak out. Manning is one brave soldier because he fought the enemy within.

But even if you did it, why would you plead guilty to 10 charges when they are still going to prosecute for the other 12? Wouldn't you negotiate a bargain where they'd drop 12 to get a guilty plea on 10? Otherwise, you have nothing to fear from a trial on the 10 you plead guilty to. The worst case is that they'd find you guilty of what you would plead guilty to in the first place.

Probably because the only way to fight the espionage charges would be to claim that you disobeyed standing orders for the greater good of the country, and things like the Geneva Convention for treatment of prisoners. If he wants to claim the high moral ground, he has to plead guilty to what he actually is guilty of.

The guy is apparently rather unstable, but he made better use of his deployment in Iraq than any of the other soldiers who brutalized random people and often came back homeless, crippled, or dead for following the rules.

He deliberately aided and abetted an enemy.His trial and execution should have been a done deal 2.5 years ago.

What enemy? Execution? Manning didn't take the names of sources to Iran and even then it probably wouldn't have got him executed when Robert Hanssen did something similar to that and he's not getting executed and Aldrich Ames did something exactly like that and he isn't being executed. Those guys were high level while Manning was a low level officer if that. He doesn't have the same level of responsibility and a lot of this is the result of giving him more classified access than he reasonably needed to have